Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The proposed project is located in high range-size rarity and key biodiversity area.
Evidence B:KBAs in the area, high forest cover
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: The proposed area in the south is more than 100 t/ha.
Evidence B:Carbon layer on the map shows high concentrations in the project sites
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: IPLC maintain large range of the proposed area in various model of land use management. However, the IPLC conservation and natural resource management face significant constraint because the government policy did not formally recognize customary land management.
Evidence B:Not under recognised rights, but de facto long-term settlements and land use. Uncertain continued residence, but possible recognition of some areas is possible.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The IPLC in the south side of the proposed project is a hunter gathered community that relies on the surrounding environment. It is also important in the North side which is maintained by Karen communities.
Evidence B:Well explained
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The current threats come from the government, corporation and other groups that challenge the IPLC conservation practices. Additionally, the lack of legal recognition of customary land tenure make IPLC under a serious threat.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: There are several policy and programs by the government to support community initiative, but there programs have not showing a significant result.
Evidence B:Recognise limited rights in law, but real possibility of increasing the strength of legal protections.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: The proposal indicates that local government is more open to accommodate community conservation.
Evidence B:Laws contradictory, some recognise indigenous management systems, but tenure remains not realised. Cabinet resolutions in support of indigenous conservation have been passed recently.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: The proposal shows several initiatives have been taking place in the field. Many IPLC involve in such program with variety outcomes. These achievement could be scale up through this project.
Evidence B:Some, but consistent regulatory/legal support is lacking. Local government can be very supportive, or may not be, little consistency
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: Several project have been implementing with other source of funding. These projects are linked with the proposed activities in this EoI.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: Most of activities are involved the IPLC either in implementation and as the target of the activities. This is well aligned with the objective of the ICI.
Evidence B:Very good alignment but dispersed areas covered may limit impact
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The proposed activities in the EoI are well designed with detail processes and outcomes.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The proposed activities focus on the improvement of IPLC-led conservation. Additionally, this project proposed campaign and education to the policy-makers to be sensitive on the important of IPLC conservation. This is a realistic objective of the proposal.
Evidence B:Not clear that the project activities can impact on the dominance of market agriculture and industrialisation, a key and expanding threat.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Proposed activities are well aligned with EoI range of investment.
Evidence B:At the low end of the range of investment
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: There are significant co-founding to implement this program.
Evidence B:Some mentioned
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: The proposed project included 121.517 hectares with potential beneficiaries covering 24.696 people.
Evidence B:Areas are reasonable in size, but dispersed.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: The EoI indicates a wide range of relevant cultural, economic and social indicators of this project.
Evidence B:Excellent integration of and focus on cultural outcomes and indicators
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The proposed project build upon an existing successful pilot project. The project will follow ideas and methods employed by the Joint Management of Protected Areas (JoMPA) in a particular location. Therefore, this project is intended to replicate and scale up an existing ICI.
Evidence B:Future support probably needed on-going but benefits would be real and clear.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The proposal in line with the Master Plan for Integrated Biodiversity Management (2015-2021).
Evidence B:There is a clear understanding of national priorities, this project addresses some.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The proposal clearly indicated the strategy to include women in the implementation of the activities. Moreover, the Karen communities where this project will be implemented is a matriarchal society. This unique condition made this proposal is gender inclusive.
Evidence B:Women’s roles and gender considered carefully in the cultural indicators and cultural revival / traditional knowledge activities, less so in leadership
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: The proposed project build upon an successful case study of joint management between IPLC and state agencies.
Evidence B:Medium-high because the route to scale is not entirely clear, but transformative impact of investing in IPLC leadership would be clear.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: This project is proposed by NGOs and in the implementation involved IPLC. Partnership between NGOs and IPLC is clearly build in the proposal.
Evidence B:Fully led, some NGO participation in the consortium, but fully indigenous led, conceived and planned.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The lead proponent demonstrated leadership in implementing program regarding support for grassroot IPLC initiatives.
Evidence B:Demonstrated long historic roles
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The implementation of the project largely based on NGO’s network that working with IPLCs.
Evidence B:regional and global network
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The lead proponent clearly define division of labor and expertise for implementation of the project and the lead proponent also has past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence B:No GEF experience, this would be a large project for them, capacity seems present.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: the lead proponent has a good capacity in maintaining project with potential to scale up organizational capacity to maintain bigger projects.
Evidence B:With some support, this is entirely feasible.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: The lead proponent participated in the dialogue on World Bank safeguard policy on indigenous peoples
Evidence B:not applying them in a project context, but very clear knowledge of GEF safeguards.